PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 4747
Claimant - Tony Lee
Award No. 8
Case No. 8
PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance
of
Way Employes
TO and
DISPUTE Union Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT The thirty (30) days suspension assessed
OF CLAIM Track Subdepartment employee Tony Lee for
alleged violation of various company rules as
indicated in Mr. Parker's letter of January
9, 1992, is arbitrary, capricious and
unwarranted.
In light of (1) above, the claimant's record
shall be cleared of the discipline referred
to above and he shall be compensated for all
time lost.
FINDINGS
The Claimant was employed by the Union Pacific Railroad
on September 1, 1979. With the exception of furloughs in 79, 82,
83, 88, he has worked for the Carrier continuously.
According to the evidence adduced at hearing, the Claimant has a
relatively good employment record,
although, there
are
indications that he was guilty of being absent without authority,
as well as, being tardy on occasion. For example, on July 16,
1990, he was issued a Letter of Counsel, which read in part:
In reviewing timekeeping documents I have
observed that you are absent from work with
some frequency. I do not know whether these
absences are authorized or unauthorized.
If you have personal or family problems that
prevent you from working regularly, you
should feel free to discuss the matter with
the undersigned or your foreman.
Unauthorized absenteeism is not in conformity
with company Rule 604 of of (sic) Form 7908
and could result in disciplinary action if
continued. It should also be pointed out
that your position is scheduled to work eight
hours per day, five days per week under
ordinary circumstances, and frequent
absenteeism not only affects productivity,
but likewise impacts adversely upon your co-
Subsequently, the Claimant was given a fifteen (15) day deferred
suspension for violating the same Rule dealing with tardiness.
The action which precipitated the disciplinary action which
is before this Board occurred on December 2 and 3, 1991.According to the record, the Claimant was absent on those two
days, which followed Thanksgiving Holiday, and did not call in to
report prior to his scheduled shift. While he did bring in a
doctor's excuse the following day, December 4, 1991, the
Supervisor did not believe the excuse was of sufficient detail to
fully apprise him of the reason for the Claimant's absence.- -
Furthermore, the Carrier felt the Claimant erred in not calling
in as he had been previously directed. At that point, they
offered the Claimant a waiver which included a fifteen (15) day
actual suspension which was rejected. A formal hearing was
conducted on December 20, 1991. -
After reviewing the evidence from the hearing the Carrier
issued the Claimant a thirty (30) day_actual suspension.
After reviewing the facts in this matter, the Board
concludes that the Claimant was guilty of violating Rule 604,
which reads as follows:
Rule 604: Duty, Reporting or Absent.
Employees must report for duty at the
designated time and place. They must devote
.themselves exclusively to the Company service
while on duty. They must not absent
themselves from duty, exchange duties, or
substitute others ,in their place without
proper authority.
Understandably, the Carrier is somewhat dismayed at the
Claimant's failure to respond in a more positive manner to the
deferred suspension issued October 10, 1991. He will have to
learn to take the counseling of Supervisors more seriously. The
2
41 W? - 8
very least he can do is contact his employer before- his shift to
advise them of his impending absence or tardiness. Either an
employee wants to work or s/he does not. They are not free to
make their own schedules. The Board recognizes that the Carrier
did resort to progressive discipline in as much as the Letter of
Counsel was followed by a fifteen-day deferred suspension and
then the thirty (30) day actual suspension. However, the basic
tenet of progressive discipline is to issue the least amount of
discipline necessary to convince an employee to alter his/her
unacceptable behavior. The Board is not convinced that a
suspension of fewer days, would not have had the necessary effect.
Regardless, the Claimant had been issued a fifteen (15) day
deferred suspension which he did not challenge. He should have
been well aware that the next time he violated the cited rule he
would be required, by Agreement to serve the fifteen (15) day
deferred suspension plus any additional justifiable penalty.
The Board believes, however, that the thirty (30) day
suspension is excessive. It would be reduced to a fifteen (15)
day suspension.
AWARD
The thirty (30) day suspension issued to the Claimant as a
result of the evidence adduced at the formal hearing on December
20, 1991, is to be reduced to a fifteen (15) day suspension. The
Claimant is to be reimbursed the difference in wages and benefits
he lost while serving the thirty (30) day suspension issued on
January 9, 1992 and what he would have lost by serving the
fifteen (15) day suspension issued in this Award.
l~ r
r~
· C rol J. Zamperini -
Neutral
Submitted:
April 30, 1992
Denver, Colorado
3